Californian is in Cameron's Titanic

[Michael H. Standart]

Michael K.; I'll have to reveiw the movie sometime when I get the chance. I may have seen it presented in an unused scene presented in a documentary, but I'm sure it was there. Or intended to be. As breif as it was, it would be easy to miss.

Tracy, I tend to think that Jim Carey is unsuited for ANY role, but that's just a matter of opinion on my part. I'm sure others differ and their welcome to it. I have nothing against the guy personally, but I just don't like his flicks.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Nienke B]

i can remember seeing that movie again... it was a mini serie too wasn't it? i do think that's the scene i remembered, you're right!
but i still don't understand why cameron didn't mention the californian. it was such an inportant issue.
by the way, jim carey is brilliant! although he would be suited for a serious role he was defenitily perfect for, for example, lier lier.
but ok please don't put him in a titanic movie.

Nienke

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Nienke; Camaron may have wanted to avoid ruffling some feathers in regards to the Californian. It's clearly one of the thorniest issues debated in the Titanic community. But then he went ahead and put in that scene where Will Murdoch was presented as committing suicide as the ship foundered and ruffled some feathers anyway. (Shrug)

I suspect the real issue here was a press for time. The theatrical release of the film was over three and a half hours long so quite a bit of film ended up on the cutting room floor. At least 18 minutes or so I've been given to understand. Naturally, it was the historical material which got the axe. Hopefully, the much rumored Directors Cut will come out with the scenes restored...but I'll beleive it when I see it.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Carl Warner]

Just a thought (and you must tell me if I'm not welcome): Why is the Californian issue so thorny? From my (albeit brief) look at the subject, it seems quite clear that the Californian was the vessel in question. I've heard repeated mention of "Lordites", those who wish to exonerate Lord and redress his vilification, and I can somewhat understand the contemporary view - Lord was a serving mariner; it is easy to see why certain individuals would like to see his name cleared. But why now? Surely the only evidence we have to support claims that the Californian was not the ship in question came from a profoundly biased (though understandably so) corner. While revisionism is a healthy and necessary part of any historical study, I fail to see why, given all the available evidence, this matter still provokes such controversy. Although I wouldn't for one moment claim that I am a first class historian (as my Director of Studies would no doubt attest), it seems to me that the whole Californian issue is effectively dead. After all, doesn't Occam's Razor apply just as neatly to the Titanic-Californian case?

Once again, sorry for butting in; I really know far too little about the disaster, but I'd be really interested to know why the subject is still so hotly debated.

Yours (with apologies for my ham-fisted grammar)

Carl

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Not to worry about wearing out your welcome, Carl. You'd have to do something way out of line to do that...like habitually flaming people.

And you asked a pretty decent question as to why it's an emotional issue. The best I can say is that it's always been an emotional issue. There has always been a sense among some that Captain Lord got a raw deal and it's natural for people to champion the cause of the underdog. In this case, redressing what is perceived by some to be an injustice that needs to be corrected. Sentiments like this die hard, and some of the ambiguity that surrounds this affair doesn't help in the least. That's why I expect this will be a thorn in the side of Titanic researchers for a long time to come.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Mike Herbold]

Carl:
What is Occam's Razor?

 

[Carl Warner]

Mike:
Occam's razor, in its current most popular form, is shorthand for arguing that when one has two theories that arrive at the same conclusion, or that make the same prediction, the simpler theory is the better. In terms of the Californian, it seems altogether more convoluted to postulate and maintain the existence of a third vessel, when the California fits the bill adequately; after all, there seems little reasonable doubt that there WAS another vessel near the Titanic.

Thanks for your reply Michael,

Yours,

Carl

 

[Mike Herbold]

Thanks for that, Carl.
I'd never heard the expression before.
What's its origin?

 

[Jonathon Jedd]

Mike:
Also new here myself. I've seen the term before, and know it's used in the sciences. Hold on ... I have a book that talks about its derivation ...

OK. From "Eureka!: 81 Key Ideas Explained", by Michael Macrone (1994. Cader Company, Inc.), it was espoused by "William of Ockham (Occam is the Latinized form), an English theologian of the early fourteenth century."

His "razor" was the "logical implement he wielded to trim absurdities out of arguments." The idea was that "if it isn't necessary to introduce complexities and hypotheticals into an argument, don't do it; not only will the result be less elegant and convincing, it will also less likely be correct."

As a side note, I too wonder about all the hubbub. Regardless of any other questions, didn't the Californian admittedly observe distress rockets and do nothing? Doesn't that make it the ship that _stood_ still, not might have?

JJ